and to turn the entire public Mr. Peary's way. Something more must still
be done, Peary's press agent offered $3,000, and the cowardly Ashton, of
Tacoma, offered another $3,000, to send an expedition to Alaska, to
further the pro-Peary effort to down a rival. The traitor, Parker,
responded. He was joined by the other quitter, Belmore Brown, who has
conveniently forgotten to return borrowed money to me. This
Peary-Parker-Brown combination went to Alaska in 1910, engaged in mining
pursuits and hunting adventures. They returned with the expected and
framed report that Mt. McKinley had not been climbed, and that they had
climbed a snow-hill, had photographed it, and that the photograph was
similar to mine of the topmost peak of Mt. McKinley. Mt. McKinley has a
base twenty-five miles wide; it has upon the various slopes of its giant
uplift hundreds of peaks, all glacial, polished, and of a similar
contour. No one peak towers gigantically above the others. On the top
are many peaks, no particular one of which can with any accuracy of
inches be decided arbitrarily as the very highest. The top of a mountain
does not converge to a pin-point apex. One looks out, not into immediate
space on all sides, but over an area, as I have said, of many peaks. My
photograph of the peak, which loomed highest among the others on the
top, possesses a profile not unusual among ice-cut rocks. The
Peary-Parker-Brown seekers tried hard to duplicate this photograph, so
as to show I had faked my picture. The thing might have been done easily
in the Canadian Rockies. It could be done in a dozen more accessible
places in Alaska; but, without real work, it could be only crudely done
near Mt. McKinley. The photograph which Peary's friends offered to
discredit the first ascent is one of a double peak, part of which
vaguely suggests but a poor outline of Mt. McKinley, and in which a rock
has been faked. Who is responsible for this humbug? Where is the
negative? The photograph bears no actual semblance to my picture of the
top of Mt. McKinley whatever. But why was the negative faked? Parker
excuses the evident unfairness of the dissimilar photograph by saying
that he could not get the same position as I must have had. But is
laziness or haste an excuse when a man's honor is assailed.[28]
Let us follow the Peary high-handed humbugs further. To the southeast of
Mt. McKinley is a huge mountain, which I named Mt. Disston in 1905. This
peak was robbed of its name, and over it Parker wrote Mt. Huntington. To
the northeast of Mt. McKinley is another peak, charted on my maps, to
which Peary gave the name of the president of the Peary Arctic Trust. To
this peak was given the same name, by the same methods of stealing the
credit of other explorers, as that adopted by Peary when, in response to
$25,000 of easy money, he wrote the same name, "Thomas Hubbard," over
Sverdrup's northern point of Heiberg Land. Can it be doubted that the
Peary-Parker-Brown propaganda of hypocrisy and dishonor in Alaska is
guided by no other spirit than that of Mr. Peary?
Many persons say: "We will credit Dr. Cook's attainment of the Pole
if this Mt. McKinley matter is cleared up." I have heard this often.
I have offered in my book proofs of the climb--the same proofs any
mountain-climber offers. To discredit these, my enemies stooped to
bribery. I have in my possession, and have stated here, proofs of this.
Such proofs are even more tangible than the climbing of a far-away
mountain. Is any other clarifier or any other evidence required to prove
the pro-Peary frauds?
THE PEARY-PARKER-BROWN HUMBUG UP TO DATE
This chapter is best closed by an analysis of the second effort of
Parker and Brown. It will be remembered that in their first venture
as hirelings of the Peary propaganda, they balked at the north-east
ridge, without making a serious attempt. This ridge--(the ridge upon
which I had climbed to the top of Mt. McKinley) was pronounced
impossible and therefore my claim in their judgment was false, for
such a statement $3,000.00 had been paid. During the spring of 1912,
again with $5,000 of Pro-Peary money to discredit me--The same
hirelings went through the range, attacked the same ridge from the
west and by the really able efforts of their guide, La Voy, a point
near the top was reached. The Associated Press report of this effort
said that the principal result of the expedition was to show that the
north-east ridge (the ridge which I had climbed), was climbable. The
very men sent out and paid, therefore, by my enemies to disprove my
work have proven, against their will, my first ascent of Mt. McKinley.
Two other exploring parties were about the slopes of Mt. McKinley
during the time of the Peary-Parker defamers. The first, a group of
hardy Alaskan pioneers, whose report is written in the Overland
Magazine for February, 1913, by Ralph H. Cairns--after an unbiased
study of reports both for and against, Cairns credits my first ascent.
The well known Engineer R. C. Bates, who as a U. S. revenue inspector
of mines and an explorer and mountain climber, did much pioneer work
about Mt. McKinley. He also goes on record in the Los Angeles Tribune
of February 13th, 1913, as saying: "Dr. Cook really succeeded in
ascending the north-east ridge of Mt. McKinley as claimed in 1906."
Bates confirms the charge of $5,000 being paid the Parker-Brown
expedition to refute my 1906 ascent, and says: "In 1906 Dr. Cook
claimed he climbed Mt. McKinley by the north-east ridge. In the
account of the 1910 expedition, Parker claimed that 'the north-east
ridge, the one used by Dr. Cook, was absolutely unsurmountable'. I,
with a party of two, explored the mountain in 1911 and selected the
north-east ridge as the only feasible route to the top. I ascended to
11,000 feet, according to barometric measure. I told of the exploit
to members of the Parker party, who took the same course in 1912.
Mr. Parker now contradicts his former statement by saying, 'The
north-east ridge is the only feasible ridge, and whoever goes up will
follow in my footsteps.'" It is important to note that Dr. Cook's
previous footsteps were eliminated, $5,000 had been paid for that very
purpose.
In a personal interview Mr. Bates made the very grave change that one
of the leaders of the very expedition sent out to discredit me, had
offered him a bribe to swear falsely to certain assessment work on
claims which had not been done. The Peary-Parker-Brown movement is
therefore from many sources a proven propaganda of bribery, conspiracy
and perjury. That such men can escape the doom of prison cells is
a parody upon human decency, and yet such are the men who are
responsible for the distrust which has been thrown on my work.
THE DUNKLE-LOOSE FORGERY
ITS PRO-PEARY MAKING
XXXV
THE LAST PERJURED DEFAMATION
With the bitterness of the money-bought document to shatter my veracity
regarding the ascent of Mt. McKinley ever before me, I canceled in
November all my lecture engagements. Mr. William M. Grey, then managing
my tour, broke contracts covering over $140,000. But, for the time
being, these could not be filled. I was nearing a stage of mental and
physical exhaustion, and required rest. Seeking a quiet retreat, my wife
and I left the Waldorf-Astoria and secured quarters at the Gramatan Inn,
in Bronxville, N. Y. Here was prepared my report and data to be sent to
Copenhagen.
At this time, as if again destined by fate, innocently I made my
greatest error, opened myself to what became the most serious and
damaging charge against my good faith, and the misstated account of
which, published later, was used by my enemies in their efforts to brand
me as a conscious faker and deliberate fraud.
When I now think of the incidents leading up to the acquaintance of
Dunkle and Loose, it does seem that I had lost all sense of balance, and
that my brain was befogged. Shortly before I had started West, Dunkle
was brought to me by Mr. Bradley on the pretext of wanting to talk life
insurance.
During my lecture tour threats from fanatics reached me, and in my
nervous condition it was not hard for me to believe that my life was in
danger. Then, too, it seemed that all the money I had made might be
spent in efforts to defend myself. I decided to protect my wife and
children by life insurance. How Dunkle guessed this--if he did--I do not
know. But at just the right moment he appeared, and I fell into the
insurance trap.
At the time I did not know that Dunkle had been a professional
"subscription-raiser," who, while I was in the North, had volunteered to
raise money for a relief expedition--provided he was given an exorbitant
percentage.
For this reason both Anthony Fiala and Dillon Wallace had refused to
introduce him to me before he secured the introduction by Mr. Bradley.
When Mrs. Cook first saw him, with feminine intuition she said:
"Don't have anything to do with that man. I don't like his looks."
I did not heed this, however. After some futile life insurance talk, he
surprised me by saying irrelevantly:
"By the way, I have an expert navigator, a friend of mine, who can prove
that Peary was not at the Pole."
"I have not challenged Mr. Peary's claim," I replied, "and do not wish
to. The New York _Herald_, however, may listen to what you have to say."
That was all that was said at the time.
After my return from the western lecture tour, Dunkle seemed to be
always around, and at every opportunity spoke to me. He gained a measure
of confidence by criticising the press campaign waged against me. I
naturally felt kindly toward anyone who was sympathetic. At this time,
when the problem of accurate observations was worrying me, when my mind
was beginning to weigh the problem of scientific accuracy--again just at
the psychological moment--Dunkle brought Loose out to the Gramatan Inn
and introduced him to me, saying that he was an expert navigator.
Pretending a knowledge of the situation in Europe, Loose told me the
Danes were becoming impatient. I replied that I was busy preparing my
report.
"Something ought to be done in the meantime," he said. "Now, I have
connections with some of the Scandinavian papers, and I think some
friendly articles in the meantime would allay this unrest."
The idea seemed reasonable; anything that would help me was welcome, and
I told Loose, if he wanted to, that he might go ahead. He visited me
several times, and broached the subject of the possible outcome of the
Copenhagen verdict. By this time I felt fairly friendly with him.
Finally he brought me several articles. They seemed weak and irrelevant.
Lonsdale read them, said there was not much to them, but that they might
help. Loose mailed the articles--or said he did. Then, to my amazement,
he made the audacious suggestion that I let him go over my material. I
flatly refused.
He pointed out, what I myself had been thinking about, that all
observations were subject to extreme inaccuracy. He suggested his
working mine out backward to verify them. As I regarded him as an
experienced navigator, I thought this of interest. I was not a
navigator, and, moreover, had had no chance of checking my figures. So,
desiring an independent view, and thinking that another man's method
might satisfy any doubts, I told him to go ahead, using the figures
published in my story in the New York _Herald_.
At the time I told him to purchase for me a "Bowditch Navigator," which
I lacked, and any other almanacs and charts he needed for himself. He
came out to the Gramatan to live. Arrangements for his stay had been
made by Dunkle--under the name of Lewis, I have been told since--but I
knew nothing of this at the time. I gave Loose $250, which was to
compensate him in full for the articles and his running expenses. It
struck me that he took an unnecessarily long time to finish his work of
checking my calculations.
Late one night, returning from the city, I went to his room. Dunkle was
there. Papers were strewn all over the room.
"Well," said Loose, "I think we have this thing all fixed up."
Dunkle, smooth-tongued and friendly as ever, said, "Now, Doctor, I want
to advise you to put your own observations aside. _Send these to
Copenhagen!_"
I looked up amazed, incredulous. I felt stunned for the moment, and said
little. I then took the trouble to look over all the papers carefully.
There was a full set of faked observations. The examination took me an
hour. During that time Dunkle and Loose were talking in a low tone. I
did not hear what they said. I saw at once the game the rascals had been
playing. The insinuation of their nefarious suggestion for the moment
cleared my mind, and a dull anger filled me.
"Gentlemen," I said, "pack up every scrap of this paper in that
dress-suit case. Take all of your belongings and leave this hotel at
once."
I stood there while they did so. Not a word was spoken. Sheepish and
silent, they shuffled from the room, ashamed and taken aback. Sick at
heart at the thought that these men should have considered me
unscrupulous enough to buy and use their faked figures, I went to my
room. From that day--November 22--I have not received a letter or
telegram from either.
Months later, in South America, I read with horrified amazement a
summary of the account of this occurrence, sold by Dunkle and Loose to
the New York _Times_. Distorted and twisted as it was I doubt if even
the _Times_ would have used it had Dunkle and Loose not forced the lie
that these faked figures were sent to Copenhagen. They knew, as God
knows, that every scrap of paper on which they wrote was packed in a
suit-case as dirty as the intent of their sin-blotted paper.
If my report to the Copenhagen University proved anything, it was, by
comparison, figure by figure, with the affidavits published, that in
this at least I was guilty of no fraud.
In a re-examination later, a handwriting expert has come to the
conclusion that the name of Loose was forged, and Loose was later put in
jail for another offense. To the city editor of a New York evening paper
Loose offered to sell a story retracting the charges published in the
_Times_. Dunkle admitted to witnesses that he had been paid for the
affidavit published in the New York _Times_. Loose, willing to discredit
the _Times_ story, said, however, he "wanted big money" for a
retraction. One question that is forced in the interest of fair-play is,
Why did the New York _Times_, without investigation, print a news item
by which a man's honor is attacked, which is not only a perjury but a
forgery? The managing editor was shown the evidence of this forgery,
admitted its force, but not a word was printed to counteract the harm
done by printing false news.
Captain E. B. Baldwin, a year later, discovered that this pro-Peary
faked stuff was in possession of Professor James H. Gore, one of Mr.
Peary's friends in the National Geographic Society, which prostituted
its name for Peary by passing upon valueless "proofs." From the methods
pursued by this society later, I am inclined to the belief that the
Dunkle-Loose fake was concocted for members of this society. If not, how
does it happen that Professor Gore is in possession of this faked,
forged, and perjured stuff?
HOW A GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY PROSTITUTED ITS NAME
XXXVI
THE WASHINGTON VERDICT--THE COPENHAGEN VERDICT
While one group of pro-Peary men were early engaged in various
conspiracies, extending from New York to the Pacific coast, fabricating
false charges, faking, and forging news items designed to injure me, men
higher up in Washington were planning other deceptions behind closed
doors. The Mt. McKinley bribery and the Dunkle-Loose humbug had the
desired effect in reducing the opposition in Washington, and by December
of 1909 the controversy was settled to Mr. Peary's satisfaction by a
group of men who, by deception, betrayed public trust.
The National Geographic Society very early assumed a meddlesome air in
an effort to dictate the distribution of Polar honors. With the excuse
that they would give a gold medal to him who could prove priority to the
claim of Polar discovery, they began a series of movements that would
put a dishonorable political campaign to shame. In the light of later
developments, medals from this society are regarded by true scientific
workers as badges of dishonor. By way of explanation, one of the
officers said that they made it a rule to examine all original field
observations before the society honored an explorer. This was a
deliberate falsehood, for no explorer going to Washington had previously
packed his field papers and instruments for inspection. If so, then this
society again convicts itself of a humbug, as it did later. Mr. Peary
had been given a gold medal for his claim of having reached the farthest
north in 1906. Peary admitted that his position rested on one imperfect
observation. I happened, quite by accident, to be in a position, soon
after Peary's return, to examine the instruments with which the farthest
north observations had been made. Every apparatus was so bent and
bruised that further observations were impossible. Of course Peary will
say that the instruments were injured en route on the return. But this
does not excuse the idle boast of the members of the National Geographic
Society, who said that they always examined a returning explorer's field
notes and apparatus, when in this case they did not see Mr. Peary's
observations nor his instruments.
As a matter of fact, the National Geographic, like every other
geographic society, had previously rated the merits of an explorer's
work by his published reports. Their tactics were now changed to bring
about a position where they might focus the controversy to Mr. Peary's
and their advantage. There would have been no harm in this effort, if it
had been honest; but, as we will see presently, falsehood and deception
were evident in every move.
The position of the National Geographic Society is very generally
misunderstood because of its pretentious use of the word "National." In
reality, it is neither national nor geographic. It is a kind of
self-admiration society, which serves the mission of a lecture bureau.
It has no connection with the Government and has no geographic authority
save that which it assumes. As a lecture bureau it had retained Mr.
Peary to fill an important position as its principal star for many
years. To keep him in the field as their head-line attraction they had
paid $1,000 to Mr. Peary for the very venture now in question. This
so-called "National" Geographic Society was, therefore, a stock owner in
the venture upon which they passed as an unbiased jury.
Of course Mr. Peary consented to rest his case in their hands; but, for
reasons above indicated and for others given below, I refused to have
any dealings with such an unfair combination. The Government was
appealed to, and every political and private wire was pulled to compel
me to submit my case to a packed jury. During all the time when this was
done, its moving spirits, Gilbert Grosvenor and Admiral Chester, were
publicly and privately saying things about me and my attainment of the
Pole that no gentleman would utter. That Mr. Peary was a member of this
society; that his friends were absolute dictators of the power of
appointment; that they were stock owners in Mr. Peary's enterprise--all
of this, and a good many other facts, were carefully suppressed. To the
public this society declared they were "neutral, unbiased and
scientific"--no more deliberate lie than which was ever forced upon the
public.
Of course I refused to place my case in dishonest pro-Peary hands. With
shameless audacity this society helped Mr. Peary carry along his press
campaign by disseminating the cowardly slurs of Grosvenor, Chester, and
others. They watched and encouraged the McKinley bribery; they closed
their eyes to the Kennan lies. Through Chester and others, they faked
pages of sensational pseudo-scientific news, all with the one centered
aim of forcing doubt on opposing interests before the crucial moment,
when, behind closed doors, the matter could be settled to their liking.
Thus, when Peary, his club, and his affiliated boosters at Washington
were carrying their press slanders to a focus, there came a loud cry
from the National Geographic Society for proofs.
With some wrangling, and a good deal of protest from half-hearted men,
like Professor Moore, a jury was appointed to pass upon Mr. Peary's
claims and mine. My claims were to be passed upon against my will.
Unbiased and real Arctic explorers like General Greely and Admiral
Schley were carefully excluded from this jury. Instead, armchair
geographers, who were closely related to the Peary interests, were
appointed as a "neutral jury," as follows:
_Henry Gannett_, a close personal friend of Mr. Peary.
_C. M. Chester_, related to Mr. Peary's fur trader, a member of a
coterie that divided the profits of fleecing the Eskimos.
_O. H. Tittman_, chief of a department under which part of Mr. Peary's
work was done.
With a flourish of trumpets, including pages of self-boosting news
distributed by Mr. Peary's press agents, this commission began its
important investigation. At the time, it was said that all of Mr.
Peary's original field papers and instruments were under careful
scrutiny. Later it was shown that one of the jury saw only COPIES. On
November 4, 1909, was issued the verdict of this jury: "That Commander
Peary reached the North Pole on April 6, 1909."
This verdict, at its face value, was fair; but the circumstances which
surrounded it before and after were such as to raise a doubt that can
never be removed. With the verdict came the insinuation that no one else
had reached the Pole before Peary; that my claim of priority was
dishonest. A nagging press campaign continued to emanate from
Washington.
I have no objection to Mr. Peary's friends endorsing him--a friend who
will stretch a point is not to be condemned. But when such friends stoop
to dishonorable methods to inflict injury upon others, then a protest is
in order. My aim here is not to deny that Mr. Peary reached the Pole
near enough for all practical purposes, but to show how men sacrificed
their word of honor to boost Mr. Peary and to discredit me.
The verdict of this jury which was to settle the controversy for all
time was sent out on wires that encircled the globe. Soon after there
was a call for the data upon which that jury passed. The public called
for it; the Government called for it; foreign geographical societies
asked for it. No one was allowed to see the wonderful "proofs." Why?
Officially, that commission said that Mr. Peary's contract with a
magazine prevented the publication of the "proofs." But every member of
the commission was on the Government pay-roll. Why, may we ask, should
a Government official be muzzled with a bid for commercial gain? This
contract was held by Benjamin Hampton, of _Hampton's Magazine_. If
Hampton's contract muzzled the Government officials, Mr. Hampton thought
so little of the so-called "proofs" that he did not print them. For, in
_Hampton's_ installment, with the eye-attracting title, "Peary Proofs
Positive," the real data upon which the Peary case rests were
eliminated. Why? In Mr. Peary's own book that material is again
suppressed. Why? For the same reason that the jury was muzzled. _The
material would not bear public scrutiny!_